|
November 17, 2006
The next sentence would be 'what about the costs to our coal industry.' Then it would be followed by a paragraph on national energy security which means making sure that Australia keeps its export markets for coal. The phrase 'global commons' would be tossed in to show a certain finesse in this bitterly-fought rearguard action.
Allan Moir
The dog would ask: what level of economic growth is compatible with preventing runaway climate change? Only the dog is able to ask a question about the limits to growth because it is still economic heresy to question economic growth.
What will be avoided by the speaker is mentioning any policies to ensure the development of the replacement industries on an appropriate scale; or incentives to ensure that innovators develop new thinking and technologies for a low carbon world and market mechanisms to ensure that entrepreneurs turn those ideas and tools into new ventures.
|
It's well known that the Australian govt's policies on global warming are tied to the country's economic dependence on mineral and energy resource exports, such as coal. Compare these facts; last year Iran exported USD $55bl worth of crude oil while Australia exported USD $25bl worth of coal. My understanding is that total investment into research and development of clean coal technologies in Australia is only $300ml per year. I think the govt is of the view that this technology isn't really viable.